Letter to U.S. Rep. Pocan, re: His bill to Abolish ICE

A letter I’ve just mailed [I cling to the old hard copy approach 🙂 ] to Mr. Pocan, the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s Second Congressional District:

Dear Representative Pocan:

I am writing to express my deep disappointment at your ill-considered introduction of a bill to terminate the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). While I abhor both the policy under which we separated parents and children at the border and our apparent treatment of many of those reaching our border as rabble rather than human beings, the fact remains that we need enforcement of our immigration laws. I’m confident that ICE agents undertake dangerous and difficult responsibilities on a daily basis that those of us in our ivory towers prefer not to think about. Your meat-axe approach seems to lack any substantive solution to the immigration enforcement challenges we face. I assume that you are feeling suitable embarrassment if, as The Wall Street Journal reports, you intend to vote against your own bill if the House Republican leadership submits it for a vote.

On a less important level, liberals seem determined to be their own worst political enemies. Our state and a number of other states and districts are closely divided. Judging by the President’s polling numbers, he’s lost support during his time in office. Today, it seems likely that few of those that voted for Secretary Clinton would vote Republican, while a significantly higher number of the more centrist voters that ultimately voted for the President rue their vote. Right now, Democrats are on the Republican side of the 50-yard line. While it may be exhilarating to strike a gesture for a party’s most ardent supporters by taking actions like you did, it’s not the way to win elections. There’s no need to stoke the enthusiasm of Democratic loyalists; their fervor against the President and Republican policies is so strong that they’ll come out and vote. What you and other Democratic office holders should do – if you wish to win, and not simply feel exhilaration — is focus on earning the confidence of those 2016 Republican voters that have developed misgivings about the Republican actions over the last 18 months. Many of these voters fear that their values no longer have a place in our country, have the impression that our immigration policies are too lax, fear crime, etc., etc. To vote for Democrats, they must be assured that their justifiable concerns will be taken seriously by Democratic office holders. If Democratic Party strategists advise that providing these sorts of assurances will require the party to renounce the societal openness it also champions … then the party needs new strategists.

In an early chapter in his book, The Best and The Brightest, David Halberstam wrote the following about John F. Kennedy’s assessment of his chances for winning the Democratic Party nomination in 1960:

“[The liberal intellectual wing of the party was] not only dubious of [Kennedy] but staunchly loyal to Adlai Stevenson after those two gallant and exhilarating defeats. That very exhilaration had left the Kennedys, particularly Robert Kennedy, with a vague suspicion that liberals would rather lose gallantly than win pragmatically, that they valued the irony and charm of Stevenson’s election-night concessions more than they valued the power and patronage of victory. [My emphasis].”

Although it is unusual for me to align with House Speaker Paul Ryan on domestic issues, I agree with his comment quoted in this weekend’s Journal: “[Democrats advocating abolishing ICE] are tripping over themselves to move too far to the left.”

Will it be exhilaration or pragmatism? Has the party learned anything over the last 60 years?

Initial Reactions to the Kavanaugh Nomination

Back in February, I entered a long note on the two-factor methodology that I believe should govern a Senator’s decision whether to vote to confirm a President’s nominee to the Supreme Court [including edited versions of letters I had previously sent to Sens. Charles Grassley and Tammy Baldwin respectively related to the nominations of Judge Merrick Garland and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch — to which letters, alas, neither Senator paid any heed ;)]. The approach that I believe should be adopted is straightforward: Is the nominee judicially qualified? If so, is there any other objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)? I do not believe that the candidate’s substantive views on any issue should play a role in whether s/he should be confirmed. The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and appoint federal judges; the Senate should promptly discharge its duty to consent to qualified nominees, and to withhold its consent from those that are not.

As I stated in my letter to Sen. Baldwin, I consider the Senate Republicans’ refusal to promptly hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination (and – unless unexpected issues had been uncovered – to have confirmed him) a dereliction of their duty. It frankly grates on me that Senate Republicans flouted by procedural tactic and with partisan malice what I consider their constitutional duty to have fairly and promptly assessed the merits of an apparently qualified nominee put before them (by the way, put before them by a President elected by over 50% of the votes cast, with almost a year left in his term). The Senate Republicans’ actions can be viewed as even that much more galling since Judge Garland was in effect replaced on the Court by a judge (albeit indisputably qualified) of a different philosophy nominated by a President who, while validly elected, didn’t even receive the most votes cast – let alone 50%.

Having vented my spleen at the disreputable behavior of Senate Republicans toward Judge Garland’s nomination (for what I would wager will not be the last time), I would assert that any citizen that claims respect for our system and belief in fair play doesn’t get to pick and choose when s/he supports those principles. Our constitutional officers and we as a people need to stop answering one partisan act with another. Assuming that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is as qualified a jurist as early accounts make it appear, I would if a Senator vote to confirm him to the United States Supreme Court unless some other objective reason (of the type noted above) indicating his unfitness surfaces during the Senate confirmation process. Those that espouse the need to have respect for our processes … should respect those processes. We have the President we have, and he has lawfully exercised his power to make the nomination he has made.

A Postscript to Yesterday’s Post ;)

Almost as I was sending yesterday’s entry about the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s July 3 finding upholding the Intelligence Community’s Assessment of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, and expressing dismay at what I consider to be the counter-productive nature of a delegation of Republican Senators’ current trip to Russia, President Trump was hosting a campaign rally in Montana. In addition to his customary .. er .. inaccuracies, the President said this (I’ve seen the tapes):

“Putin’s fine. He’s fine. We’re all fine. We’re people.”

Such a grotesque denial of reality by our President in the area of most critical importance to the lifeblood and safety of our nation is, frankly, terrifying. The fact that the crowd cheered as he spouted this and other nonsense was disquieting. (That said, I do have more than a bit of hope that some Montanans were merely being polite; yesterday, the Wall Street Journal quoted a Montana Trump supporter as saying, “… if Trump … asked me to vote for [Republican Senate candidate Matt] Rosendale, I’d say, ‘Yeah, sure.’ But then I’d go out and still vote for [current Democratic Senator Jon] Tester.”)

In commenting yesterday on the Republican Senate junket to Russia, I suggested that the Senators’ conduct, in the light of the ICA findings as upheld by the Senate Select Committee, was, although seemingly unwise, perhaps merely well-meaning blundering rather than dereliction of duty; I can’t make the same allowance for the President of the United States …

Chatting in the Face of Cyber War

Two related items that shouldn’t be lost in the flurry of the holiday: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s issuance of findings on the Intelligence Community’s January, 2017, Assessment of Russian interference in our election process (the ICA) and … a trip currently being taken to Russia by a U.S. Senate delegation.

On July 3, the bipartisan Senate Committee issued a set of its findings on the reliability of the ICA. The findings are worth reading in their entirety — only 7 pages and readily found through an internet search. Although many are aware, it’s worth noting that this Committee contains one more Republican than Democrat, and that at least three of the Republicans on the Committee – Sens. Lankford, Cotton, and Cornyn – have been strong supporters of President Trump in other contexts.

First a recap of some of the ICA referred to in the Committee’s report:

That Russia executed a “significant escalation” in its attempt to interfere in U.S. domestic politics in the run-up to the 2016 elections through multi-faceted cyber espionage and cyber-driven messaging via Russian-controlled propaganda platforms.
That Russia’s activities were in furtherance of its longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order.
That Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election, intended to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
That President Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for then-candidate Donald Trump.
That President Putin and the Russian Government aspired when possible to help Candidate Trump win by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

The Senate Committee’s findings regarding the reliability of the ICA include the following:

That the ICA was a “sound intelligence product.”
That the ICA was supported by evidence reviewed by the Senate Committee.
That the intelligence analysts that prepared the ICA were under no politically-motivated pressure to reach any conclusions.
That the disagreement among intelligence analysts was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated, with analysts on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions.
That the [Steele] [D]ossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA.

Meanwhile, during the same days that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee was issuing these findings, we have a Senate delegation visiting Russia and conferring with President Putin and Russian officials. This group – entirely Republican – apparently includes Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Kennedy (R-LA), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), and … Wisconsin’s own Ron Johnson. Sen. Shelby has been quoted as saying during the trip, “[The United States and Russia] have a strained relationship, but we could have a better relationship between the U.S. and Russia because there’s some common interests around the world that we could hopefully work together on.”

While Sen. Shelby – for whom, along with Sen. Kennedy, I had a fair measure of respect before this episode – is literally correct – there are indeed areas in which we have common interests with Russia (e.g., the ISIS conflict) — his comment is largely akin to saying that you have a common interest in weed control with a neighbor trying to burn your house down.

I remain an unabashed Richard Nixon – Ronald Reagan follower in the foreign policy sphere. It is inconceivable that either of those Presidents, given the clear evidence of Russia’s interference in our election process – which Dick Cheney noted last year some would consider “an act of war” — would believe cozy conversations with the Russians at this time to be in America’s best interest. Both Presidents made clear, publicly and privately, that they understood that the Russians of their day – and Mr. Putin, cut from the cloth of the Cold War, is of their day — respond to strength and resolve, not amiable chatting. I would suggest that this delegation’s activities are at best well-intended blundering, and arguably a disappointing dereliction of their sworn duty to “… defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”

The Time for Outrage is Past: MAAA

Although I’ve been tied up with other pursuits the last couple of weeks, ongoing events have caused me to consult my American Heritage Dictionary. It defines “shock” in part as follows:

“[An] unexpected blow … A severe offense to one’s sense of propriety or decency; an outrage.…”

I would suggest that although our institutions are so far holding fast, they are under the greatest internal strain since the civil war. Every day, President Trump assaults our basic foundations purely for his own self-aggrandizement. His enablers support him to protect their own interests. It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past. I would submit that every citizen has a duty to think critically about where we are going as a country … and what s/he is going to do about it.

Mr. Trump lies chronically – indeed, promiscuously. I assume that even those that support his substantive policies recognize this. Truth – what is – is more important than the substance of any issue. Our republic cannot indefinitely survive breathing the carbon dioxide exhaled by the President.

The President and his allies engage by turns in an unceasing and unwarranted attack on the courts, law enforcement, and the mainstream media. While clearly none are perfect, the rule of law and freedom of speech have supported our way of life over this nation’s history. The President seeks to trample them for his own purposes, with his sycophants shamefully and cowardly abetting him.

Mr. Trump incites racial and religious hate. Using broad strokes to label immigrants and Muslims as our enemies manifests a malevolent disregard of what this country stands for. The vast majority of Americans – including him – are descended from immigrants. The right to freely practice one’s faith is a cornerstone of this Republic. His constant reference to gangs such as M-13 when discussing southern migrants seeks to create an inference of a general criminal invasion that the relative numbers show is absurd. Separating parents and children at the border is inhumane. Making children pawns in a legislative negotiation for his border wall is monstrous. He stokes his followers’ fears and encourages their darker emotions because it helps him, not them.

A transgression that to me is as destructive as those above is the way the President is letting his own supporters down … and they seemingly don’t recognize it. I would offer that the way he manipulates the millions that believe in him is as cruel as his treatment of his adversaries.

His massive tax cut predominantly benefited big corporations and the rich, at a time when unemployment was already steadily dropping and The Wall Street Journal was reporting the U.S. economy to be in the forefront of worldwide economic growth. Economists unanimously expect the tax cut to aggravate deficits that will in turn more quickly endanger entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This threat won’t much matter to Mr. Trump, his family and friends – they’re rich. It will matter to the great percentage of the President’s supporters who do and will rely on these programs.

His attempt to protect legacy industries such as coal mining and certain of our manufacturing segments are as if Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to protect horse buggy manufacturers while slapping tariffs on materials Henry Ford needed to build cars. Through his phrases, Mr. Trump assures his financially desperate supporters that it isn’t their fault that their fortunes have deteriorated over the last decades. While a serious physical condition may not be the patient’s fault, there is no return to health by blaming others or administering outdated care plans. He’s lulling them with a pipe dream. Challenges created by automation, globalization, an aging population, etc., etc., aren’t going away. Instead of alerting his followers to their and our nation’s need to focus on the industries, technologies, and opportunities of the future, he’s giving them Leave it to Beaver.

Perhaps the most remarkable: It is now undisputed that the President dictated the statement that Donald Trump, Jr., initially issued in the summer of 2017 indicating that Trump Campaign officials’ meeting with Russians in the summer of 2016 did not involve a campaign issue. It would have taken no prescience for the President to realize that if the truth came out – which it did, in a matter of days – the false statement would be putting a bull’s eye on his son for an obstruction of justice charge. Who endangers one’s own child?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan summarized some of the challenges we will be facing in the coming months in a piece she published in May, 2017:

“The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated … that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability.”

Although I obviously consider Mr. Trump to have shown his unsuitability in the areas listed by Ms. Noonan, I would offer that he has demonstrated his unsuitability in two areas that matter even more: his apparent lack of moral compass and his selfish disregard for the well-being of the people he has sworn to serve. It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past. Although I will give the President credit in the future when I think he deserves it, now is the time to devote energy, within the bounds of law, morals, and ethics, to the electoral contests ahead.

It’s time to Make America … America Again …

Roseanne and Samantha

Having briefly indulged in baseball’s comforting warmth, it’s time to return to reality. Although the Roseanne Barr / Samantha Bee ruckus is in the process of fading into our daily haze, and there are obviously many large issues clamoring for comment, the uproar around these women has caused me to again focus on our general need to improve our continually coarsening public dialog.

First, Ms. Barr. I don’t think I ever saw a full episode of her show’s first run and caught but a few scenes of the recent reprise. Living in my own bubble, I wasn’t aware that she had exhibited a decades-long pattern of racial behaviors until hearing of her tweet about Valerie Jarrett and seeing the ensuing reporting. This is the straightforward one: she had multiple chances. She should have been fired, and was.

The approach to Ms. Bee’s comments about Ivanka Trump is for me more complex. Ms. Trump, as a formal member of the Trump Administration, is a government official and has to abide a certain level of scrutiny. A number of her activities while in office warrant severe criticism (the Chinese trademarks she received in recent days being a ready objective example). That said, Ms. Bee went too far. I confess that if Ms. Bee had called our daughter what she called Ms. Trump, I wouldn’t want her to get a second chance; I’d want her fired. I can’t fault the President for feeling and stating the same.

I find it no excuse for Ms. Bee that — as her defenders have been quick to point out — the President himself revels in escalating the level of crass exchange now present in our public discourse. I don’t care. I would assert that if Ms. Bee intends to contribute to the public commentary, she has (and had) a responsibility – like all from the President of the United States to a lonely blogger — to do so civilly. At the same time, unless she has shown a pattern of untoward behavior (if so, I haven’t seen a report of it), termination seems too harsh.

So how might TBS proceed? Although it looks like the network intends to let Ms. Bee get away with simply a more robust apology to Ms. Trump, I would offer this: if the terms of her contract give TBS the right to cancel her show without further payment to her if it so wished, TBS might consider (1) making it clear to Ms. Bee that another like incident will result in her immediate termination and (2) requiring Ms. Bee to forfeit a month’s salary (which, given internet accounts placing her TBS salary at around $1million, amounts to about $80,000), to be paid to a charity designated by Ms. Trump [a real charity – not a Trump charity ;)]. Such an approach would not end her career, but would send a message that untoward conduct comes with consequences beyond the tired rite of insincere apologies.

Codes of behavior matter. As our longstanding norms come under ever greater stress, we need to maintain our respect for them in small matters if we hope to have them withstand the assaults in large areas that are likely ahead of us.

It’s a Long Season …

We Milwaukee Brewer fans are understandably pleased with the team’s fast start; beginning action today, Milwaukee is in first place in the National League Central Division (three and a half games ahead of the formidable Cubs), and has the best record in the National League.

Even so, only a third of the season has passed. While many teams over the years have come back from mediocre starts to win championships, and a terrible start lasting into June almost invariably dooms a team’s season, a strong start is generally indicative of … not much. The Brewers have had great starts in the past. The 1987 team began 13-0 on its way to a 20-3 start — and didn’t make the playoffs. Even the great Robin Yount – Paul Molitor World Series team of 1982 had better than a six game lead in late August – and still needed two Yount home runs on the last day of the season to squeeze into the postseason.

So while we Brewer fans are enjoying the ride thus far, the time to start thinking about playoff possibilities is after Labor Day weekend, not after Memorial Day weekend. The elation and the anguish of baseball share the same journey: It’s a long season.

ZTE … Annotated

It generally serves little purpose to regurgitate information available via a brief internet search, but since many people are living their lives without delving into the gory details of every policy disagreement in Washington, it’s worth calling out the current dispute between the White House and just about everybody else in Washington (Democrats, Republicans, and our U.S. security apparatus) over whether to continue sanctions imposed on Chinese telecommunications manufacturer ZTE by – ironically — the Trump Administration.

ZTE has been involved in our telecom industry for years. It both supplies equipment to some of our small (mostly rural) telecom companies and buys parts (including fiber) from American companies to make its equipment. These companies are obviously adversely impacted by governmental limitation on their ability to transact with ZTE. Additionally, ZTE issues have a potential impact on (1) our agriculture industry and (2) Chinese approval of an acquisition by U.S. company Qualcomm deemed critical to Qualcomm’s growth.

ZTE is also reportedly one of China’s key players in the battle for future strategic telecommunications dominance being waged between the U.S. and China. I understand that 5G is the new horizon; ZTE is one of the companies striving for a foothold in the technology.

Our government has considered ZTE to be a security threat for some time, and banned purchase of its equipment by NASA, the Justice and Commerce Departments in 2013. In February, our security agencies warned consumers about buying Chinese-manufactured phones. In early May, the Pentagon banned the purchase of ZTE and Huawei (another Chinese telecom manufacturer) phones near military bases. The overall concern is that China could utilize the equipment to conduct electronic spying on Americans. ZTE denies that the equipment could be so utilized, and both China and ZTE deny that the government places any pressure on ZTE. (Given what even we lay people know about telecommunications technology, it’s hard to believe that ZTE equipment couldn’t be so utilized, or that China, even if it places no pressure on ZTE today, couldn’t start doing so tomorrow.)

If the e-surveillance issue wasn’t enough, ZTE is a bad actor; the Trump Commerce Department placed its ban on American companies’ sales of parts to ZTE because it determined (and is apparently undisputed) that ZTE skirted sanctions in selling equipment to North Korea and Iran.

Our ban has apparently crippled ZTE, a matter of sufficient import to China that President Xi personally raised the ban with President Trump, prompting this tweet by the President:

“President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done! [My emphasis]”

Despite almost unanimous bipartisan concern, the Administration is now seeking to lift its sanctions on ZTE – allowing it to remain in business – provided that it pay a fine in excess of $1 billion, submit to U.S. inspectors, and make changes to its management team. China would agree to remove billions of dollars of tariffs on our agricultural products as part of the deal.

Aside from the obvious – that neither the President’s supporters nor detractors in this country care about protecting Chinese jobs – I would submit that the President’s actions in trying to resuscitate ZTE are troubling from two perspectives:

Defective strategic thinking. Acknowledging that the impact to certain of our companies could be severe if we hold fast on the ZTE sanctions, the President (as noted most articulately by Sen. Marco Rubio) is mixing trade with national security. The two don’t mix. I fear that the President is exhibiting the attitude sometimes evident among people with business backgrounds: believing dollars justify means. Even putting aside potential security issues and what should be our goal of limiting China’s strategic technological advancement, letting ZTE off the sanctions sends the message that no matter how bad an actor performs, we can be bought off. I would rather see us temporarily assist the telecoms and farmers adversely impacted by the sanctions than let ZTE off the hook. (Qualcomm might just be out of luck.)

The appearance of self-enrichment. I assume that even the President’s most fervent supporters will concede that his sudden reversal on his own administration’s sanctions on ZTE – with a tweet expressing concern for Chinese jobs – was bizarre. Coming at about the same time as the Chinese government approved a number of trademarks for Ivanka Trump and the Chinese government granted a $500 million loan to a Chinese construction company for work on an Indonesian theme park (the loan is reportedly the majority of the entire park project’s funding) featuring Trump properties (called park “flagships” by National Review), there is the obvious suspicion that the President’s reversal on ZTE is a quid pro quo for China’s assistance to his family business.

Right now, there are a number of bipartisan moves in Congress to bar the Administration from lifting its bans on ZTE. Although I generally believe that a President needs to have a fairly free hand in conducting foreign policy – nothing can be achieved when s/he has to deal with 535 Congressional kibitzers – since his discussion with President Xi, he has been – at the very least — sufficiently tone deaf to the ramifications and appearances of his approach that that Congressional interjection is not only warranted – it’s vital.

Taking a Knee …

I’ve recently read The Assault on Intelligence by former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden. There are a sufficient number of foreign policy and security insights in his account to warrant making some further Noise about his book in the future. However, the NFL’s announcement this week of its new policy requiring all players on the field to stand during the national anthem made me recall one particular passage of Mr. Hayden’s book (he was raised in Pittsburgh, and appears to be as much the Steeler fan as some of us are Packer fans), in which he reminds that the controversy began with a speech President Trump delivered in late September, 2017, during which the President said the following:

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He’s fired. He’s fired!’ …. When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they are playing our great national anthem. The only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium. I guarantee things will stop. Things will stop. Just pick up and leave. Pick up and leave. [Emphasis mine, not Mr. Hayden’s].”

My comment to follow, but what prompted this post is something Mr. Hayden added:

“The week before [the President’s speech], six NFL players protested social injustice and police brutality by sitting or taking a knee during the pregame anthem. Six. This was not a national issue. [Emphasis Mr. Hayden’s].”

I have not independently verified Mr. Hayden’s claim that only six NFL players sat or knelt during the pregame anthems the week before the President’s speech. If his account is accurate, it would seem that the President – a masterful showman with a unique genius for manipulating the media and his supporters – here, as in many other instances, adroitly spun what became and remains a mountain out of a molehill to inflame his supporters for his own political purposes.

This is an area that I enter cautiously, since at least two people for whom I have the highest regard have indicated to me that they are troubled by the NFL players that haven’t stood during the national anthem. I would offer this:

Reading the President’s words as Mr. Hayden quoted them was chilling for me in the first instance for reasons having nothing to do with the substantive issue. His references to “people like yourselves” and “those people” did, at the very least, again set up the “us against them” tribalism mentality that divides us rather than unites us, and at worst, exacerbated racial tensions (since virtually all, if not all, of the players not standing were black men).

My Catholic upbringing has from the outset left me a bit puzzled about one aspect of this controversy; I relate “taking a knee” to genuflection – certainly not a lesser level of respect for that being esteemed than standing.

Again, perhaps influenced by a lifetime of genuflecting: I suggest that one could consider the players’ actions as respectful, nonviolent demonstrations — akin to the sit-ins and the freedom rides of the 1960s — through which they called attention to injustices they perceive to exist in our nation. Calling out a perceived injustice in this country is not disrespecting the country.

No one of any political stripe should disagree with the proposition that in this country, one is free to express his/her views on controversial issues in a nonviolent manner.

I have a different perspective on Mr. Hayden’s point about this not being a national issue. While we must carefully address the merits of the issues the players have raised, it escapes me why we as a nation should have our hair on fire because some number of men choose to lawfully express their views about perceived social injustice. In this country, people demonstrate about some issue or other every day. Only the NFL’s glitz makes it noteworthy. Many thousands marched for enhanced gun regulation a few weeks back; judging by the lack of Congressional action in this realm, our nation has (regrettably, in my view) pretty readily taken that much larger demonstration in stride.

Agree or disagree with me on the substance of the players’ demonstration (and as noted above, a couple of people whose opinion I hold in the highest regard do indeed disagree with me); but no matter where one stands on the substance, it appears fair to pose that the lion’s share of the emotion generated around this issue has been entirely … Trumped up.

As I was about to hit the “Publish” button on this, it occurred to me that it’s appropriate to suggest that amidst holiday gatherings and home projects, we take a minute this weekend to remember the sacrifices made by Americans to enable us to freely express our views on controversial issues in a nonviolent manner. This last paragraph is a rare one that I am 100% confident is not haywire …

The Lamentable Legacy of Paul Ryan: Part I

After Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan announced his intent to retire from Congress this past April, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement intended to praise Mr. Ryan, saying in part, “Paul’s speakership has yielded one signature accomplishment after another for his conference, his constituents in Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional District, and the American people [my emphasis].”

While one can agree or dispute Sen. McConnell’s characterization of Mr. Ryan’s tenure as one of “accomplishment,” it seems to me that the order in which he placed Mr. Ryan’s constituencies was entirely accurate — and (unwittingly) more indictment than tribute.

By all accounts, Mr. Ryan is an upbeat, pleasant man of probity. His intelligence and grasp of policy detail are legendary. Even those that vigorously disagree with him on substantive issues like and praise him personally. Yet, it is hard, as Mr. Ryan’s tenure draws to a close, not to characterize his record as, at best, one of accommodation and enablement, and at worst, one of hypocrisy and timidity.

Any review of Mr. Ryan’s record demonstrates that the issue of greatest concern to him throughout his career has been the ever-growing federal debt. An internet search yields such a number of the Speaker’s declarations on the issue that if all were recorded here, WordPress would need another couple of servers to hold them. A brief sampling:

In March of 2010:

“This debt crisis coming to our country. The wall and tidal wave of debt that is befalling our nation. Medicare and Social Security go bankrupt within ten years, we have a debt that is looming so high that in the last year of President Obama’s budget just the interest payments on our debt is $916 billion dollars.”

And again, urging a need for fiscal restraint in March, 2013:

“Our debt is already bigger than our economy.”

These are understandable sentiments; a number of thoughtful commentators have suggested that our burgeoning debt may be not only our most important domestic policy issue but also our most dangerous foreign policy challenge. However, anyone looking at the dates of these and his like comments will note that they all were made while Barack Obama was in the White House.

In 2001, Mr. Ryan voted for President Bush’s tax cuts [to be fair, at the time of the vote, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a significant federal budget surplus into the future].
In the summer of 2003, he voted for President Bush’s second round of tax cuts. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
In the early winter of 2003, he voted for Medicare Part D. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
According to news accounts, he voted at least five times to raise the federal debt ceiling during the Bush presidency. Good policy, but I’ve seen no indication that he sounded any alarm in those years — as contrasted with the struggles on this issue during the Obama presidency.

If I understand the reporting correctly, the CBO concluded in 2012 that the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D were the cause of about 30% of the then-current national debt. No matter how one feels about the substance of these measures, it was apparent by the time that President Trump took office that the Bush laws had significantly added to the deficits that Mr. Ryan never tired of railing about. Mr. Ryan nevertheless ushered through the House both a tax cut and a budget deal – which USA Today reported that he called the “biggest accomplishments” of his Speakership — that the CBO estimated in April would add $1.6 trillion to the deficit during the next decade … and more if the individual tax cuts (set to expire in 2026) are extended. This estimate could not have come as a surprise; when Trump tax plan details surfaced in the spring of 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that “not one respondent” in a University of Chicago poll of leading academic economists thought that the plan would pay for itself.

In the final analysis, the Speaker was more interested in obtaining perceived short term political gain for the members of his House Republican caucus than in America’s long term fiscal stability. The measures he championed placed the entitlements that millions of Americans need and will need on even shakier ground than they were before. He instead chose to accommodate his members. A fact is a fact.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the dichotomy between Rep. Ryan’s words and actions is more evidence of political careerism and opportunism than fervently-held policy beliefs. Even so, I am less troubled by his inconsistency on fiscal issues than by his failure of moral Constitutional leadership. However, recognizing that this is a blog rather than an endless Word document, it’s time to call a halt. More in Part II …